RE: Historian explains why Jesus ''mythers'' aren't taken seriously by most Historians
June 7, 2015 at 8:09 pm
(June 7, 2015 at 7:49 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Mainstream historians who have studied that time period and region overwhelming think Jesus existed, regardless of their religious association. I mean that's just reality. It's pretty commonly used by people who are against mythicists. Although I do think it's a weak argument also and wouldn't normally use it beyond perhaps showing why mythicism hasn't really gone into the mainstream. Personally I didn't bring that up as an argument earlier because I think that facts are always more important than who believes in them, regardless of what the argument is.
Correct, Capn. But as soon as you ask them to describe what the HJ was the consensus falls apart. J. D. Crossan famously said that the sheer variety of opinions of what the HJ was is an embarrassment. But more telling to me is that they have no hard evidence. I'm not interested in their opinions. I want to see the evidence they used in coming to that conclusion and it always turns out to be the same gospel horseshit over and over. That shit is not good enough. I am capable of evaluating evidence if it is put in front of me.
A while back I started a thread on the Doctrina Jacobi which is a 6th century writing in which a forced convert to xtianity writes ( in what is hearsay to the third power ) that he heard of a "prophet among the saracens" c 534 AD which would be 2 years after mohammed supposedly died. It's an absurd piece of shit and no muslim would recognize the "prophet" as their pal, Mo, but it does show that people living at the time had some idea of a religious element to the Arabic assault on Palestine even if they had no idea which religion it was!
Bad as it is, xtianity has nothing even close to it as far as timeliness or suggesting that first century people though someone came back from the fucking dead.
